Not to take The Bible in vain, but, "And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of America, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more."

And that cry shall be Hillary, Hillary, please save us from the selected president, monkeyboy.

With regard to Zombyboy's observation, the parallels with Barry Goldwater's 1964 Presidential run should not be dismissed. However, let it be said at once, Goldwater was an entirely estimable candidate worthy of anyone's support. He certainly had mine.

I think the Dean phenomonon has already made itself apparent. Dean is the only Democratic candidate people are talking about, but all they are saying is how unelectable he is. So he appeals to ultra-left Greens? Great, they pulled about 3% in the last election. Woo hoo.

So what's really going to happen? Sandy has it right. Look at the woman behind the curtain. If the Democrats are getting blown out, look for Hillary to sit quietly on the sidelines and set herself up as messiah of the Democratic party leading up to 2008. If the race is close, look for her to backstab her way into getting the Democratic nom.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary ends up with the nom *after* the primaries have been decided and she replaces the poor schmuck who won. That's what the Dems did with Toricelli, after all and it worked there. And we all know Democrats never let a little detail like election law get in their way...

Unfortunately I think Sandy P. is correct. It will be Hillary and she has a very good chance of winning.

The left has their 43% locked in. I still think McCain will run as a third party candidate -- aided and abetted by the left and the media -- to siphon off votes from the right.

Can the voting public remain immune to the media full court press against Bush for the next 18 months? I hope so, but the incessant drum beat must be effective. That's how we all learned the multiplication tables and that's why gazillions of dollars are spent on advertising. Eventually the message sinks in.

Our only hope is that truth will be told on FOX News, the Internet through blogs and conservative websites.

G-d, Heaven, Allah help us one and all if we fail and we have a reprise of the Clinton presidency.

I hope that Hillary is getting an ulcer thinking this one through. There are two things she absolutely cannot afford to have happen - either losing to Bush herself or else having one of the pygmies beat him. In either case, she can kiss her own aspirations goodbye. So she is biding her time, watching the numbers and keeping within striking distance. If she thinks there is a reasonable chance against W, you can bet she'll have her kris out and into everyone else's ribs before you can say snap. (I think Bubba's remarks that the Dems should drop this yellowcake bs were a sighting shot.) On the other hand, if she thinks W can't be beat, well, I would imagine she'll sit on her hands, let the party self-destruct and then move in to reconstruct it in her own image for 08. The only real question is how long she can leave it before she has to decide.

You say "big losses often lead to big reforms," but is this historically true with the Dems? Hubert Humphrey lost by a whisker in 1968. That electoral squeeker was followed by major reforms in the party, hence McGovern. McGovern's wipeout was followed by consolidation of the 1972 reforms, not abrogation thereof. Carter's victory was a Watergate consequence and had nothing to do with party reform. Carter's 1980 wipeout did not cause any "big reform." Thus Mondale's 1984 electoral catastrophe, which was not followed by any structural or ideological reform. Hello Michael Dukakis.

All this talk of Barry Goldwater reminds me of my dad's joke shortly after that election: Someone told him if he voted for Goldwater, it would only be a couple of years until the US was totally involved in a brutal, gruesome war in SE Asia.

He voted for Goldwater anyway, and sure enough, we were.

Hey Mr. Green, have the anti-anti-Dean blogers paid your inbox a visit yet? Just curious, everybody keeps writing about how fast and efficient they are.

You're wrong about the Greens supporting Dean. I read a story the other day discussing this and the Greens were bashing Dean for not caring about the environment. He's too moderate for them.

Not every disaster is followed by reform. It seems to depend on whether or not the lessons of the loss are actually learned. Besides, Carter was never particularly valued by the Democratic Party until he was ex-Pres and could be used as a club.

I would be very surprised is Hillary runs in 2004 no matter what happens, if she is even half as smart as they say. Bill saw his chance in 1992 and took it, knowing it was probably his only chance. Hillary has enormous negatives, even now, without being targetted as she would be in an election.

Assuming that the economy is not tanked by around next Mar-Apr-May, how is Bush defeated? If it is, where is Hillary's entry point? Any reasonable (okay, okay) Dem would stand a real good chance, and Hillary is not exactly loved by all Dems, either, you know.

No, looks like her best shot is 2008 and try to sabotage the 2004 Dem candidate, if needed. Anyone think she wouldn't?

Greens are a little like libertarians (hey, stop throwing things and listen!)-- they vary in their extremes and they see a popular Democrat who leans further left than any other candidate in a while. There will be part of the Green party that defects to support Dean.

Sort of like many in the "Religious Right" will support Bush even though their leaders are threatening defection and Bush hasn't been as strong as they'd like on some social issues. I still say a large portion of the rank-and-file will support Bush because they know that a compromise candidate can still get them movement on other pet issues.

I also think that the rank-and-file are beating themselves up over the Bush presidency. After such a closely contested election that led to a Presidency that went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Green "protest" vote might have lost its luster for a good number of their party.

I stand by what I said and by my original predictions. Leaders say one thing, but voters do another, and that's nothing new.

I don't think Hillary runs. She waits until 2008 because she knows she's a loser this election even if she gets the nomination.

A Hillary nomination at this point would mobilize Republicans like no one else on the left--and the party knows this. That's not necessarily the case in 2008 after, presumably, successfully serving in Washington and garnering more support by being a moderate voice that still appeals to much of the hard left.

And all of this is precisely why the Republicans should be grooming Condi for a run in 2008. (Okay, that's my own pet thing, I'll admit...)

I don't think a Dean nomination would be good for the Dems. Assuing he doesn't win it all, with his mixture of moderate & left views the party would still be infighting over what kind candidate they should have nominated--an obvious proxy war for what kind of party the Democrats will be. One side will say he lost becuase he was too far to the left on some major issues, the other becuase he was too centrist to really get the electorate excited. We'll be hearing the same arguments after Gore lost in 2000, and the Democrats will still be adrift.

Zomby, I don't think you can claim Condi-in-2004 as your pet idea, admirable as it is. There's too many other people who want to see it too!

Just imagine...Condi Rice defeats Hillary Clinton in 2008. It would have to rank at the top of the list of Coolest Moments in US History.

1. Actually, isn't Dukakis the only New England liberal the Democrats have nominated since FDR died? Mondale, Stevenson, Humphery, McGovern . . . those guys were all from the midwest. If you count them as liberals, Jimmy Carter was from Georgia and Al Gore was from Venus.

2. My own theory used to be that Dean would be the worst for Hillary, since a loss by a more moderate candidate would raise cries for someone uncompromising, while a Dean loss would discredit the Northeastern liberal wing that Hillary now belongs to. But it's now clear that a Dean loss would set the stage for a reaction in favor of foreign policy moderation -- a candidate who was tough on terrorism and strong on defense -- and cannily (in line with the state she represents), Hillary is positioning herself in precisely that position (note that Bill is now also offering good words for GWB). So she may yet manage to be the zag that follows Dean's zig if he gets nominated.

Mike, it would be a dream come true.

To erp:I can't imagine McCain running against the president while the War on Terror is still going on - he knows fully well what is at stake.

While Dean = Goldwater, it seems that in HRC we have a modern, Democratic version of...Richard Nixon! Only more ruthless, ideologically extreme, power hungry, paranoid, and dishonest. And with fewer social graces. But unlike Dick, she's got hubby to play off against, as well as (presumably), 2 successful elections to Senate once 08 rolls around. I'm with Crank. She'll retain her hard core of support while seeming amazingly sensible on foreign affairs compared with current lot. My guess is she may actually win in 08 but then selfdestruct with her paranoia and GOP congress. God help us.

Hillary's negatives are in the range of 48%. She would coast to the nomination but still face an uphill fight in 2008 against whomever the GOP nominates.

An excellent pair of articles, Stephen. I think that as soon as Dean opens a lead in either Iowa or NH, the other candidates will shoot him down. You'll see attack ads focusing on gun control, and they won't be pretty.

On the one hand, I can't see Dean winning the nomination. On the other, I can't see any of the other candidates winning it either. They're just a bunch of robo-bushbashers. The two likeliest outcomes of the 2004 election are Bush reelection and a Bush landslide.

Of course, anything can happen, including a Dem victory -- it's just hard to see how.

Hmm. The post is about Dean and the comments are mostly about Hillary. That's a harbinger of how fast Dean will evaporate after the Southern primary. And how loud the chorus for Hillary will then become. (Her own Southern primary performance in '08 will depend crucially on Bill.) My bets are with Crank and Lloyd I.

Anyone know Condi's views on domestic policy?

I think the Clintons are indeed keeping the door open for '04. Hil's book kept them in the headlines, Bill's recent WMD triangulation took foreign policy off the table. So if they go after Bush they'll run on the economy (stupid) while promising a foreign policy of more of the same.

One minor quibble, Goldwater "was a Reagan Republican before Reagan Republicanism was even invented" because he was inventing Reagan Republicanism. Reagan was a major player in Goldwater's campaign, and even gave the speech at the convention in support of Goldwater that is considered the foundation of modern conservatism.

I think the previous posters have it, Hillary is setting up to run in '08, she can't run now because she needs time to lower her neg ratings, shore up her defense stances, actually finish one term in the Senate, and (most important) she can't beat GW right now. So she and her hubby are lying low and letting one of the 9 dwarfs take the brunt, even sabotaging them descretely when necessary (i.e. Bill's pro "W" comments on Larry King) and then she's going to run in '08 against the GOP, who will be scrambling for a sucessor just as the Dems are now. It should be interesting, in a Chinese curse sort of way.

A minor quibble with your minor quibble... It wasn't at the convention, it was on the idiot box. The speech can be read here.

Count me as a Condi booster too--but I'd recommend watching her back. I've noticed some of the usual suspects pushing rather hard to make her the fall guy for Nigeruraniumgate--the Dems would dearly love to cripple her as a potential candidate without having to resort to having their unsavory crowd of race hucksters smear her further, or to--if desperate--making veiled insinuations about the fact that she's in her fifties and unmarried.

You know, this is the only place in the web log world where I've seen anyone talking about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2004 or 2008. You all don't even write like you're Democrats, so I suspect that your feelings don't matter to the DNC anyway.

Apologies if you are Democrats, but you all taste like Libertarians (or libertarians) to me.

What we need is an accurate estimation of what the Clintons are up to. As much as we shouldn't under-estimate their prowess as political operators, we shouldn't be intimidated on account of overestimating them either. By way of example, I was playing chess with a buddy of mine & screwed up badly. I castled & then stayed put too long, having missed his set-up. He had me dead to rights, but knowing my rep for being a sneaky, devious & smart SOB, he kept his hand on his Knight & looked for whatever stunt I had up my sleeve. I just grinned like an Ethiopian at an all-you-can-eat buffet & he freaked out because he couldn't find any traps or countermoves. He ended up putting the knight back & moving something else. He lost the game entirely due to intimidation. If Hillary does run next year, we can't let her use that rep of being the combined re-incarnation Machiavelli, Boss Tweed, & Huey Long as a weapon against us. She is human. She's made no Faustian pact. (Or if she did, such rituals hold no power outside the minds of the participents) She won't be able to hide behind her husband's genuine charm and charisma. She'd be beaten like the proverbial rented mule so long as the Republicans keep their heads.

Re the Goldwater/Dean parallels.

It seems to me that Goldwater was not running against Johnson but against what he saw as the excesses of the "Great Society". It was a programmatic opposition and campaign and not a personal one against Johnson. Goldwater's campaign and program transcended Johnson and would remain beyond Johnson's presidency or Goldwater's run.

Dean's campaign, on the other hand, is clearly driven by his personal dislike for Bush. Bush disappears, and Dean's campaign follows into the mist. There's no program beyond defeating Bush; nothing of substance that will be in place 10 or even five years from now.

So, given a Bush landslide against Dean next year, what remains of the Dean legacy? What will the Dean supporters use to build upon? Doesn't appear to be of much substance.

It's said that the Democrats (or at least the liberal/left wing) is more determined to defeat the enemies of the movement or cause then they are determined to defeat the enemies of the nation. To be sure, they oppose terrorism and are not sympathetic to those enemies of the country. But they are more fierce in their determination to defeat Bush than they are to defeat bin Laden.

Not a good position to be in in the middle of a war.

SMG

So basicly, what we need to do when the gun control attack ads start running is to use it as an opening to educate the Democrats of our acquaintance as to why Dean is correct on this issue and avoid debating all others.

Time to print up a batch of Disarming the innocent is not protection for the innocent bumperstickers.

Hi guys and gals!

I'm just sort of dragin' around the net today and got shuffled into y'all's site by Skippy -- y'all know who Skippy is don't cha'? -- so I thought I'd read what the Weirdo's of the Right had to say about Dr. Dean. And what do I read about? Hillary Clinton!!

IMOH, I think most of y'all got a problem. You enjoyed screwing with the Clinton's so much, that now that they are not in power and y'alls Repugnants are, you STILL cannot turn Bill and Hillary loose. Again, just my opinion, but I think y'all really need to move on.

No!! ---- Really!!

Hillary in 2008?? Probably not. Dr. Dean will be going for his second term then. With the Democrats again in charge of Congress, the passage of (finally) National Health Care, the peaceful unification of Korea, the election of a secular government in Iran and the return of troops from a seemingly peaceful Iraq (thanks to Dean having brought the United Nations back into the picture), not to mention the Dow soaring above 20,000 and the return of 5 cent coffee, he will be pretty much unbeatable.

Plus, in a spirit of "Compassion," President Dean's pardon of aWol Bush and the rest of the Bush Cabal, after their 3 years in Levenworth, will have so inspired Americans as to the nature of goodness and generosity, that crime will have fallen to all-time lows from the Bush League Years. For the first time ever, prisons will actually close!!

And yet what will be for some the best news of all? Hillary and Bill will both be healthy and alive, and y'all will STILL be able to fulminate about them at leisure. Maybe dig up that story about them being spawn of Space Aliens, or the one about the 666 each of them have tattoed on their heads -- you KNOW they do don't you?? -- under the hair (you have to look at it from the correct side or it looks like 999).

Yes, yes, please keep me from those days of yesteryear when the Market was High, Crime was Low, and we had to put up with BJ's in the WH, rather than Body-Bags from Iraq. What a horrible time that was. It is SO MUCH BETTER NOW, you betcha', standin' tall, kickin' ass, strutin' about the flight deck, smirkin' in the Press Room.

But what I REALLY want to know is: How would y'all feel if the nomination for the Dems went to Sharpton/Braun ------------------------- AND THEY WON????

Thank you for your time.

David Winn
Austin, Texas
dwinn@austin.rr.com

David:
You dropped the peroration:

"And they lived happily together ever after."

SteveMG

"But what I REALLY want to know is: How would y'all feel if the nomination for the Dems went to Sharpton/Braun ------------------------- AND THEY WON????"

Well, I'd assume that we all owed Dennis Kucinich an apology, since the only scenario where that would happen would obviously involve orbital mind control lasers. Of course, the mere fact that they had been nominated in the first place would reveal the plot, and the distribution of tinfoil hats to the Democratic electorate would solve the problem. That look works for them anyway.

After that, they could pull another Lautenberg and replace the nominees.

You are FOR gay marriage?
Why in the world would any thinking person be FOR gay marriage?
Do you understand what a civilization is based upon? Do you want our social institutions flushed down the toilet like they have been all over Europe, and now Canada. If you do, WHY?
Homosexuals can live together. They can inherit from one another, provided they have drafted a will. They cannot procreate, so why do they even need to marry?
Is it to make them feel better? That's not a very good basis for dismantling a social insitution which has served us very well for centuries. Such institutions do not occur in a vacuum, they evolve over thousands of years as a socially related group finds ways to better, first, their chance of survival, and second, their quality of life.
Continued destruction of our social order under the guise of heading us toward some utopia where nobody ever gets their feelings hurt is anti-american, anti-christian and anti-western. But since you are so much more intelligent than I, I am sure you and your dilletante compadres have a system that will be even better than the one we have enjoyed for so long.